Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian has inadvertently revealed the utter futility of throwing trillions of dollars of borrowed government money into the bottomless renewable energy pit.
Joe Biden could bring Paris climate goals ‘within striking distance’
Biden’s presidency could help reduce global heating by about 0.1C if plans fulfilled, say experts
Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Sun 8 Nov 2020 22.32 AEDTThe election of Joe Biden as president of the US could reduce global heating by about 0.1C, bringing the goals of the Paris agreement “within striking distance”, if his plans are fulfilled, according to a detailed analysis.
Biden’s policy of a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and plans for a $1.7tn investment in a green recovery from the Covid crisis, would reduce US emissions in the next 30 years by about 75 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide or its equivalents. Calculations by the Climate Action Tracker show that this reduction would be enough to avoid a temperature rise of about 0.1C by 2100.
However, Biden is likely to face stiff opposition to many of his proposals, from the Republican party nationally and at state level, while his room for manoeuvre will be limited by the Democrats’ showing in the Senate. If legal challenges to his plans are brought, they will be decided by a heavily conservative supreme court.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/joe-biden-paris-climate-goals-0-1c
Hey I can play this game too – if I get $1700 of that cash, I promise to cut back on eating Chilli beef. Paying a billion people to eat less chilli beef would likely have a comparable impact on global warming to spending the money on renewables. The EPA estimates CH4 accounts for 10% of observed global warming. The study I linked estimates human activity like raising beef cattle and eating chilli beans is responsible for up to 40% of detected CH4 emissions.
Alternatively the cash could be used to give all the cattle in the world that special seaweed supplement the CSIRO discovered, which is supposed to cut back on intestinal methane production.
To put this level of expenditure into perspective, the cost of launching a 0.03C manned mission to Proxima Centauri using technology developed in the 1950s has been estimated at around $2 trillion. I’m not saying that building a starship is a reasonable use of $2 trillion of taxpayer’s money, but the first step in mankind’s expansion throughout the galaxy would surely be a lot more fun than spending all that money on reducing global temperature by an amount which cannot even be directly measured.
And of course, the obvious point – if it costs $1.7 trillion to reduce global warming by 0.1C, we now have a Guardian provided method of estimating the cost of eliminating our alleged impact on the global climate, reducing global warming by 1.0C: 1.7 x 1.0C / 0.1C = $17 trillion.
You get eight starships for that kind of money, enough to start your own United Federation of Planets.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And for most life that means .1 deg C of less beneficial warming!m
.1 deg C less of beneficial warming.
The likelihood of the US joining the Paris Accord is almost zero. This is PR designed to make Biden look presidential and appeal to those who already drink the cool aid. It has to go through the Senate. The Senate will consider it an International Treaty which will require a two thirds majority to effect it. Dream On.
Don’t see what stops him achieving the same as Obama did. Which will keep the toothless “should”s in place of bi ding commitments
NAFTA was done without a Senate treaty approval.
I say without exaggeration that our educational institutions and journals and publishers need a full reboot and that in lieu of that all we can do is launch new schools, publishers, journals, etc., who actually value objectivity. There is definitely a market for this. Fortunately Covid lockdowns have made many question the value of their 4-year brainwashing and marginal institutions have faltered. Can the same happen with journals and publishers in a way that restores skepticism and actual discourse?
According to this source, world carbon emissions in 2019 were 33.3 gigatonnes, with “advanced economies” accounting for 11.3 gagatonnes and “Rest of the World” accounting for 22.0. Since 1990, the trend in advanced economies has been essentially flat; the absolute peak of 13.0 was reached in 2007 followed by a steady decline since. The 2019 total of 11.3 is exactly the same as it was in 1990. In the same period “Rest of the World” emissions have gone from 9.2 to 22.0 – a 239% increase.
The figure in the quote (75 gigatonnes for the US) clearly has to be cumulative emissions over the next 30 years, which means the US would have to on average emit 2.5 gigatonnes less than currently.
From the same source:
So starting at the current base of 4.8 gT annually and assuming we do nothing, US emissions over the next 30 years would total 144 gT and the Biden proposal aims to cut that in half. In the same time the US has cut annual emissions by 1 gT (2000 – 2019), the “Rest of the World” has increased it by 11.5 gT; not an encouraging trend.
Even on the dubious assumption the Biden plan achieves the stated goal and the US is a net zero emitter by 2050 (lowering annual word emissions by 4.8 gT), if the growth in the rest of the world continues at current rates, they will add another 17.3 gT or so. On the even more dubious assumption that all other advanced economies likewise become net zero by 2050, the total world emissions would be about 39.3 gT – approximately an 18% increase from today; all driven by the developing countries.
Pop the champagne corks – the world is saved!
Those who observe the development of molten salt small modular reactors and their costs, can prove that less than one trillion dollars could buy enough molten salt reactors, which,, when combined with the current nuclear generation (20%) and the current hydro generation (10%) , would create a carbon and emission free power grid, and also provide power for a fleet of electric vehicles. Done’ expect senile Joe Biden or his equally senile advisers to understand that technology, not 16th century wind mills or solar disks, will eliminate emissions.
Hey, if we (the USA) need to spend $1.7 trillion in the next 4 years to avoid a 0.1 °C rise in global temperature by 2100 (80 years from now) . . . well, we just have to do it!
After all, we’ve been assured the world will suffer an unrecoverable climate catastrophe if we (all nations of the world) don’t stop global warming in the next 10.25 years (!) from now, according to that prominent climate “scientist” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And as ascribed to by Joe Biden, US President-elect.
BTW, who cares any longer about the increases in annual US budget deficients or the total US national debt . . . laissez les bons temps rouler!
Biden has also said he will ban fracking. But fracking is responsible for the major drop in US emissions, down below 1990 levels.
So his net zero plans will cut emissions while his fracking ban will raise them?
I suspect his plans, if implemented would be very successful in cutting emissions, not because the actions themselves would be effective, but rather because they’ll result in a major crash of the US economy. When your economy is shut down, emissions fall.
I guess we are about to get the explanation of what Climate Justice really is. It’s for purchases of emergency backup generators for the poor and people of color. The rest of you can wait on your back ordered units—from China.
Your estimate of $17 Trillion presumes each 0.1C reduction in warming will cost equal amounts. History suggests they won’t.
Assuming this $1.7 Trillion for 0.1C is correct (which it won’t be, but let’s indulge and assume it is) that’d be for the low hanging fruit. The easy, obvious reductions, if such a thing even exists.
The more warming you have to reduce beyond easy reductions the harder you’re going to have to work, which will be more expensive pro-rata.
The Law of Diminishing Returns strikes again. $17 Trillion, and probably a whole lot more. What a total farce this entire cAGW s*** show is.
Let’s remember the $1.7 trillion is just a down payment. You have all the other 0.1s to deal with, especially near election time.
If they wait two years and a day before removing Biden for his foreign corruption. Kamala would be able to serve the less than two years remaining of Biden’s term and still be eligible for two more four year terms. I imagine Biden would be very easy to control during the first two years.
Remember to treat the whole country like it’s California. They mind until later.
America’s 10 trillion dollar investment in Covid theater saved 0 lives and likely cost hundreds of thousands.